While radio license holders should make every effort to keep their contact information registered with the FCC up to date, they are not under threat of a $1,000-per-day penalty for failing to do so.

That is according to a public notice the commission issued Friday. The confusion stems from a robocall mitigation database proceeding it released the day prior.

In that proceeding, the commission announced that it had received approval to require every holder of an FCC Registration Number (FRN) to update their contact information within 10 business days of a change or face a $1,000-per-day fine.

This announcement alarmed broadcasters, as all corporate and individual owners of station licenses in the FCC’s LMS database are tied to FRNs.

The panic led to a surge in traffic on Friday that overwhelmed the FCC’s website as licensees rushed to verify their information, according to Scott Flick of Pillsbury’s Comm Law Center, who has been following the FRN-related developments.

Some licensees even interpreted the notice to mean that if they didn’t log in to update their FRN within 10 days of the FCC’s notice, regardless of whether or not any underlying change occurred to their contact information, they would face the forfeiture.

The FCC’s late Friday public notice walked back this interpretation. The commission clarified that the new, steeper base forfeitures — $10,000 for false information and $1,000 per day for failure to update — apply only to RMD filers, such as voice service providers.

“The robocall mitigation database report and order did not address or change any forfeiture amounts that may be associated with failures to update the CORES information by non-RMD filers,” the update read.

Flick called the update a “win.”

No bouncing emails

But despite the relief, the underlying requirement is still in effect. All entities with an FRN — including radio stations — must update their CORES contact information within 10 business days of any change, such as a change in address, email or contact person.

John Broomall of Christian Community Broadcasters told us that, while he always advises for his clients to keep contact information up to date, this is the first time he can recall such a focus on it from the commission.

But for Broomall, it’s a necessary practice.

“When a consultant such as myself emails clients to ‘keep their info current,’ and the emails bounce, that is a conundrum,” he surmised.

While broadcasters are safe from the new “robocall” penalties, maintaining accurate FRN data remains a regulatory necessity. As Flick noted, if these penalties can be levied against telecom providers for data lapses, it creates a potential pathway for broadcaster fines in the future.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post FCC Issues Clarification on FRN Update Procedures appeared first on Radio World.

The State of the Net Conference annually focuses on internet-related policy. But for FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the potential rapid consolidation of media ownership was a topic too important to ignore.

In her speech, Gomez acknowledged the financial realities that affect broadcasters today, almost 30 years to the date of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

But she argued that easing or removing ownership limits for broadcasters should not be considered as the only solution, and in fact, she believes it would end up exacerbating some of the same problems proponents claim it solves.

Most of the commissioner’s comments were geared toward the local TV ownership rules, but the FCC is currently reviewing all of its local ownership rules — including for radio, as we have covered. The National Association of Broadcasters, and other radio groups, support a total removal or easing of current caps, believing that such reform is needed to merely keep radio afloat against big tech.

Gomez argued that ownership concentration ends up hurting consumers the most.

“If the FCC continues down its current path, it risks repeating the same mistake that hollowed out local newspapers, only this time in broadcast television,” she warned.

Blurred lines

Speaking at the event today, the lone Democratic commissioner explained that because the lines once separating communications markets no longer exist, preserving local journalism is more important than ever.

“Even when people get their news through social media, search engines or streaming platforms, much of the original reporting still comes from local journalists,” Gomez said.

Using the newspaper industry as an example, she said there is clear evidence of what happens when local journalism weakens.

“Newspapers were not eliminated because people stopped caring about the news,” Gomez said. “They were hollowed out through consolidation, cost cutting and the loss of advertising revenue to digital platforms, as ownership decisions were increasingly made far from the communities they affected.”

Gomez worked at the FCC three decades ago when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. She said that back then, even with the easing of limits the act allowed, part of its implementation was ensuring that no single voice, company or interest could dominate what communities see, hear and rely on for information.

She acknowledged that broadcasters today are dealing with declining revenues from advertising, digital platform competition and changing consumer habits.

But when consolidation becomes the default solution, Gomez said, it often accelerates “the very decline it is supposed to address.”

“Fewer owners does not just mean fewer balance sheets,” Gomez explained. “It means fewer independent editorial decisions and fewer local perspectives.”

Gomez cited a recent email she received from a viewer stating that a single corporate owner controls or operates most of the major broadcast TV affiliates in their local market. While it might appear that viewers in that market have more options, many of those stations share reporters, crews, anchors and often the same stories, she explained.

She also pointed to a recent poll revealing that nearly three out of four likely voters oppose large broadcast corporations buying or merging with local TV stations.

We reported on a recent poll cited by NAB, which demonstrated the opposite.

Regulatory power

The FCC itself, Gomez said, has used its power to pressure coverage in ways that are favorable to President Trump’s administration, including a recent public notice sent to ensure “equal time” for late-night TV programming. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr later clarified the notice was not geared toward talk-radio shows.

“These billion-dollar media companies have significant business before the FCC. They need regulatory approval for transactions, and they are actively seeking to reduce regulatory guardrails so they can grow even larger,” she said.

“That reality leaves local stations trapped in the middle, as corporate owners weigh regulatory risk against editorial independence and impose their will and their values on communities they may never meaningfully engage with.”

Gomez reminded the audience that Congress established a national TV ownership cap to prevent excessive concentration that threatens competition, localism and viewpoint diversity.

“It is not a suggestion,” she explained. “It is the law.”

She noted that one of the clearest examples of the agency ignoring this is its openness to transactions that would further entrench national dominance, including a potential merger between two major broadcast groups in Tegna and Nexstar that she argued would violate Congress’s restriction.

“The FCC’s responsibility is not to manage consolidation, but to steward a media ecosystem that serves consumers and communities in the real world,” Gomez concluded. “If we keep that focus, we can meet this moment without sacrificing the voices that make our democracy work.”

Comment on this or any article. Email radioworld@futurenet.com.

The post FCC’s Gomez: Fewer Owners Means Fewer Voices appeared first on Radio World.

The FCC has released the details of its proposed noncom educational band (88.1–91.9 FM) translator filing window, of which its commissioners will hold a vote to open a public notice on Feb. 18.

But are there other considerations it should make before proceeding?

Consulting engineer Edward (Ted) Schober is getting his opinion in early and he has laid out a detailed list of items he said the commission should consider that he filed in prior to a comment period that would come if the commission, as expected, approves the notice.

Schober felt his framework would enhance both the public interest and equitable distribution of authorizations.

Under the current plan the FCC has put forth, an eligible applicant for new FM translator construction permits for noncom educational stations in the reserved band would have to be a licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM. Any proposed translator would rebroadcast the primary channel.

The FCC proposes a limit of 10 applications nationally for each applicant.

For LPFMs, however, the limits are lower. According to the proposal, a Tribal LPFM would be limited to four translator applications, while all other LPFMs would be limited to two translator applications.

Schober believes the commission’s effort is laudable in that the proposal seeks to avoid the landslide of applications for FM translators distant from the primary station.

(Read Edward Schober’s comments filed to the FCC.)

But he asked the FCC to consider other options that he felt would guarantee the public interest is served, its staff is not overwhelmed and the applications to be granted are equitably reviewed.

A fair count

Schober’s first suggestion is that if an applicant has existing FM translator licenses, either in the NCE band or the non-reserved band, the total count of existing translators should be included in the translator cap for this window. That would, naturally, render some licensees ineligible.

In addition, he said that when a licensee entity has a majority of its board or other governing body also serving as the majority of another licensee, both or all the entities should be considered as a single entity.

Schober also proposed that if an applicant wished to surrender one or more existing FM translator authorizations, conditioned on a grant of a translator authorization in this new window, the entity should be permitted one additional translator application for each translator license or LPFM license surrendered.

He told the FCC he believes applicants should be prohibited from transferring existing translators or the primary station to a different party in order to increase the number of NCE FM translator applications eligible to file in this window.

Schober, who has been providing engineering counsel for hundreds of commercial and noncommercial AM, FM and translator stations for the past 45 years, said since LPFM stations are designed to provide service to a specific local area, and not provide wide area coverage, perhaps there should be limitations to their translator ambitions.

For example, he said that a translator should be denied if its proposed 60 dBu coverage extended more than approximately 30 miles from the LPFM’s own 60 dBu contour, with the exception of Tribal and public safety entities.

Tiebreakers

Observers have wondered if the FCC might modify its existing rules to consider mutually exclusive applications, or where two or more applications can’t be granted.

Schober had several suggestions in such scenarios for NCE translator applications.

• When mutually exclusive applications are tendered, the distance from the FM translator’s 60 dBu contour to the primary station’s 60 dbBV contour (up to approximately 30 miles, with zero distance most preferable) should be the primary tiebreaker between the applications.
• If a noncom full-power station or an LPFM station F(50,50) 60 dBu or AM 2 mV/m contour serves only a portion of an urbanized area, and a proposed new NCE FM translator’s F(50,50) 60 dBu contour serves a portion, or all, of that same urbanized area, the distance between service contours should be considered zero — or given higher priority.
• Mutually exclusive applications with greater distance than 30 miles between the proposed and primary station contours should be withheld until all the more local applications are granted, then the remaining applicants given an opportunity to amend.
• Fill-in translator applications should be evaluated as having zero distance between primary and translator contours, provided that at least half of the fill in translator’s F(50,50) 60 dBu contour is shown to have primary station service of less than 70 dBu contour using the Longley-Rice model.

The commission could assign whatever weight it chooses to assign to fill in FM translators that will carry HD-2, HD-3 or HD-4 programming of the primary station, Schober wrote.

Special cases

Schober proposed that Tribal entities and public safety should be permitted any number of NCE FM translators whose 60 dBu contour remain at least 90% within their reservation or area of jurisdiction, provided they have no other NCE FM translator applications that are outside the physical area of jurisdiction or responsibility.

Applicants for new FM translators within the window should be exempt from the cap if all the applications, and the principal community of the primary station are within the same minor insular outlying area, provided the applicant has no applications outside that minor outlying area. That includes applications in the USVI, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.

For the purpose of greatest frequency utilization and efficiency, he said that waivers should be granted to authorize NCE FM translators co-channel to the primary station, or to other co-channel NCE FM translator applications repeating the same primary station, provided that the F(50,10) 54 dBu of the new NCE FM translator remains within the F(50,10) 40 dBu contour of the primary station.

These should be conditioned that all other stations are fully protected, and proven FM synchronization methods must be used, Schober wrote.

“The nature of noncommercial educational FM stations does not entail the competitive issues that are raised with commercial broadcast stations, so there is no controversy concerning the expansion of the service contour of NCE FM stations,” he wrote in the proposal.

The commission has already said it will not accept applications for major modifications to existing NCE reserved band translators.

If the FCC adopts the proposal at its Feb. 18 meeting, a comment period will commence once the notice is printed in the Federal Register.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post What Should the FCC Consider in an NCE Translator Window? appeared first on Radio World.

A new petition before the FCC seeks the elimination of a section of the rules that pertains to short-spaced FM assignments.

Consulting engineer Charles Anderson wants the FCC to be able to accept applications that specify a short-spaced antenna location for which minimum distance separations are not met.

Anderson says the current language is outdated given the maturity of the band. He thinks the FCC should shift its allocations priority to improving existing facilities.

The relevant part of the rule specifies an “absolute minimum distance” for commercial FM stations, below which no amount of power reduction or signal contour overlap protection may be used to site an antenna.

The rules allow commercial FMs to request sites that are “short-spaced” to other stations by protecting existing service from interference through specific “contour protection” requirements, ensuring the new station’s predicted interfering signals don’t overlap with protected contours of other stations.

Anderson says the rules often allow transmitter site flexibility, especially in congested areas, but that the troublesome subsection prohibits the FCC from accepting applications that specify a short-spaced location for which stated minimum distance separations are not met.

It’s a “strict go/no-go limitation,” he writes. But throughout his years assisting broadcasters to improve their facilities, the “limitations in subsection (e) to §73.215 are the major impediment to existing facilities utilizing directional antennas and contour protection to move to locations that better serve their market areas.”

In many cases, he continues, broadcasters are seeking to relocate to existing towers when sites are lost, or when it is not economically viable to replace aging towers or sustain existing land and tower leasing rates inflated by wireless services.

Andreson calls it noteworthy that reserved-band stations — some 41% of FMs in the country — have never been subject to the restriction on the use of contour spacing.

“While painfully obvious to broadcast engineering professionals, it is useful to observe that there is no inherent nor even significant difference in FM propagation and reception for radio stations in the 88 to 92 MHz reserved portion of the FM band for which the subsection (e) limitation does not apply, and for radio stations in the 92 to 108 MHz non-reserved portion of the FM band for which subsection (e) does apply.”

He says broadcasters are often faced with the difficulty and expense of constructing new towers, because the restrictions frequently have blocked the use of a station’s existing tower for upgrades or the use of other towers when sites are lost or become prohibitively expensive.

Anderson cited an example of a rural Alabama broadcaster being denied a 0.44 km (1,441 feet) waiver in order to upgrade from Class A to C3 at the station’s licensed site even though there was no prohibited overlap.

“Acquisition and tower construction for a new site were financially prohibitive and the expanded 60 dBu service to an additional 58,820 listeners, a 192% increase, was thwarted. In many other cases stations have lost tower sites and the availability of alternate towers was severely limited” by the subsection rule.

The directional antenna 15 dB maximum to minimum rule and the 70 dBμ city-grade coverage rule provide adequate protection from extreme short-spacings, he told the FCC.

In his filing Anderson describes himself as a “heritage” broadcast engineering consultant, adding in a footnote that he has prepared the engineering portions of more than 1,000 FCC applications, engineering exhibits and petitions over 45 years.

The timing of his petition coincides with Chairman Brendan Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative seeking to do away with outdated rules and regulations.

The post Petition Would Ease a Short-Spacing Restriction appeared first on Radio World.

Two items involving foreign ownership that were adopted by the FCC last week will have an impact on broadcasters.

Attorneys Gregg Skall and Dennis Corbett of Telecommunications Law Professionals have posted details to help stations understand the implications.

First, stations will have new attestations to file and a new portal to file them in.

The commission will require broadcast licensees, among others, to file these attestations regarding whether their ownership structure involves “foreign adversary control.” That term for the FCC refers to people or organizations from, among others, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

Skall and Corbett write that the commission is categorizing each type of license and permit into one of three schedules. Broadcasters will be required to enter certain ownership information into a new consolidated portal called the Foreign Adversary Control System. The attestations and additional disclosures will be made available to the public.

The portal has not been established yet, nor have due dates been announced.

The FCC also streamlined and clarified the foreign ownership rules for broadcasters and other FCC licensees that file petitions for declaratory ruling under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act.

These are petitions from entities with foreign ownership in excess of regular limits who want approval to hold certain regulated licenses, including broadcast licenses. In the order, the FCC codified its practices and explained how these rules affect the processing of broadcast license applications and how they apply to non-commercial, educational and low-power FM stations.

Read the Skall and Corbett blog post.

The post FCC Will Create a “Foreign Adversary Control System” appeared first on Radio World.

The legal battle between Nielsen and Cumulus Media has escalated, with the ratings giant filing a countersuit that accuses Cumulus of handing over ratings data to one of its main competitors.

In a filing Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Nielsen alleged that Cumulus engaged in an “illicit pressure campaign” designed to extract favorable contract terms.

The countersuit claims that while Cumulus was “stringing Nielsen along” during renewal negotiations for this year, it was secretly acting in bad faith by handing over what it calls “Nielsen’s crown jewels” — its radio ratings data — to Eastlan Ratings.

The filing comes as a Nielsen spokesperson told Radio World that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has granted a request to stay the preliminary injunction Cumulus had recently won, as our Randy Stine previously covered.

That injunction would have prevented Nielsen from canceling services or enforcing certain pricing policies while the lawsuit proceeded.

Email to Eastlan

The countersuit specifically names Pierre Bouvard, chief insights officer for Cumulus and Westwood One. Nielsen alleges that Bouvard sent an email to Eastlan CEO Michael Gould attaching Nielsen’s proprietary ratings data.

Gould’s testimony on Dec. 11 “attested to this fact,” Nielsen said in the filing.

According to Nielsen, this data allowed Eastlan to “benchmark” against Nielsen’s metrics and “optimize” its own products without incurring the costs of independent research.

Nielsen claimed this was an attempt to manufacture a competitor to force the ratings company to lower its prices. “Without Cumulus sharing this information with Eastlan, Eastlan would not have had access to this Nielsen Information,” the filing states.

Procompetitive

In its answer to the original antitrust complaint, Nielsen denied it is a monopolist and defended its network policy and subscriber first policy.

Nielsen argued those policies are “procompetitive” because they protect intellectual property and ensure the company is fairly compensated.

The company said that the alleged data leak to Eastlan proves exactly why such strict policies are necessary to prevent the “unauthorized use” of its data.

Nielsen is seeking monetary damages, a declaratory judgment that Cumulus breached the 2023 services agreement and a permanent injunction to stop further data sharing.

An initial pre-trial conference, according to Radio Ink, is scheduled for March 17.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post Nielsen Countersues, Accuses Cumulus of Leaking Data to Eastlan appeared first on Radio World.

The FCC says an LPFM hopeful failed to respond “fully and accurately” to a request for more information, so it has dismissed its application for a station in Hudson, Fla.

The commission rejected the application from Money Matters Educational Inc. (MME). The FCC found its response to be “problematic, incomplete and uncredible.”

MME had applied in the 2023 LPFM filing window, but its paperwork drew scrutiny for several errors and omissions.

The FCC questioned the location of the proposed main studio and whether its board members resided within the required distance. Board members must live within 10 miles of the proposed antenna site, according to FCC rules.

On its application, MME listed Hamon Francis Fytton as sole director. Yet Florida law requires not-for-profit corporations to have a minimum of three directors, according to the FCC. In addition, the entity’s Articles of Incorporation list three other individuals as directors: Kirby Julian, Ruben Alcoba and Luis Villa.

“None of these three individuals is included as a party to the LPFM application,” the FCC wrote in its dismissal.

In November 2024, the FCC sent a letter of inquiry seeking additional information, including confirmation of MME’s directors, notarized declarations from each individual attesting that they authorized the filing of the application and copies of each individual’s driver’s license.

The FCC says MME responded and provided some but not all of the information.

MME told the FCC it had permission to use space in an office building at the address on the application “as the main studio, headquarters and transmitter site for the proposed station.” However, it failed to provide written confirmation from the building owner, only promising to send confirmation later, which it never did, according to the FCC.

As for providing identification of the directors of the corporation, MME’s response included a copy of Fytton’s license, the FCC said, but not for the others in question.

In fact, as MME’s response explained, Kirby Julian had died nearly a month before the filing of the application.

“The LOI response further states that Luis Vila is no longer associated […] with MME, and that Ruben Alcoba was travelling out of the country and unavailable at the time of the response,” according to the FCC.

MME stated that copies of identification for “Kirby Julian and Luis Vila would not be forthcoming,” but that a driver’s license for Ruben Alcoba would be supplied “after his return from travel.”  The Audio Division said it never received a further filing.

In addition, the driver’s license for Fytton indicated he resides in Fort Pierce, Fla., about 150 miles from the proposed community of license. And in their response to the letter of inquiry, officials provided a different address for Fytton in Melbourne, outside the residential requirements.

With those strikes against MME, the FCC stated it had no option but to reject the LPFM application.

“In this case, MME has failed to respond timely to the Audio Division’s request for necessary information,” wrote Albert Shuldiner, chief of the Audio Division. “The failure to comply therefore renders the application defective.”

The FCC has dismissed several other LPFM applications recently for various reasons.

The post FCC Cites Errors in Dismissing Fla. LPFM Application appeared first on Radio World.

TuneIn’s radio stations and podcasts will now be available in some Nissan vehicles in the United States.

“Drivers will be able to access TuneIn through Nissan and Infiniti vehicles equipped with Google built-in,” it announced.

It quoted CEO Rich Stern: “Drivers want access to the audio they love the moment they start the car. By bringing the full TuneIn experience directly into Nissan’s infotainment system, we’re eliminating friction and giving listeners a safer, faster way to enjoy live sports, trusted news, music and podcasts on every drive.”

The company said listening features include live sports play by play; curated music and podcasts; access to TuneIn using voice commands via TuneIn’s App Driver Distraction Management System; and new left-side driver controls that the company says make it easier to play, pause or change audio.

TuneIn has partnerships with 14 automotive brands. In late 2025 it was acquired by Stingray, a connected streaming media company based in Canada, for up to $175 million (US) in cash.

Look for our profile of Stingray in the upcoming Feb. 11 issue of Radio World.

The post TuneIn Has New Partnership With Nissan appeared first on Radio World.

The National Association of Broadcasters says registered voters support the elimination of the national broadcast ownership cap for television — and the association says “there are clear political consequences for lawmakers” who don’t agree.

NAB commissioned a study by research firm Fabrizio Ward. It posted the findings here.

The national cap limits entities from owning or controlling broadcast television stations that, in aggregate, reach more than 39% of television audience households in the country.

“Voters say the cap is unfair and they want government to give local stations a fair chance to compete for advertising and audience against Big Tech platforms, which face no such restrictions,” NAB said in a press release.

The survey found that “58% of voters say the 39% ownership restriction is unfair, including 33% who say it is very unfair, while just 20% say it is unfair.”

NAB said the survey shows that voters “want local broadcasters to compete nationally for advertising by a 42-point margin.”

It said voters say they are more likely (36%) rather than less likely (13%) to vote for a member of Congress who “supports allowing local station owners to compete nationally for advertising.” And they are less likely (36%) rather than more likely (12%) to vote for “a member of Congress who opposes reform.”

It said 52% want government policies to “make it easier for local TV stations to compete for advertisers against Big Tech while just 9% think government should make it harder.”

And the survey found that local TV remains a trusted source of news.

Fabrizio Ward surveyed 1,000 registered voters in late January using cell, landline and SMS to web channels.

NAB President/CEO Curtis LeGeyt said voters think “the government should not impose arbitrary limits on trusted local broadcasters while Big Tech platforms face no such restrictions.”

Bob Ward of Fabrizio Ward told NAB, “Voters see this as a fairness issue, and they respond to where elected officials stand.”

The results seem to contradict a recent poll commissioned by the National Hispanic Media Coalition and Defend the Press Campaign which found that large majorities of likely voters in the upcoming mid-term elections opposed “large national broadcasters buying up or merging with local TV stations.” Read about there here.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is seen as sympathetic to the idea of easing broadcast ownership limits. President Trump last fall expressed opposition to changing the national cap.

The post NAB Cautions Lawmakers About TV Ownership appeared first on Radio World.

The FCC is proposing the deletion of a Class C FM allocation southwest of Houston. Station KJOJ, its former occupant, has been silent since its tower collapsed several years ago.

The commission’s Audio Division is considering deleting 103.3 FM, allocated to Freeport, determining it no longer complies with minimum distance separation requirements.

KJOJ operated as a “rimshotter” into the Houston market. Its nearly 2,000-foot-tall tower stood west of the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge, about 10 miles southwest of Freeport and about 65 miles southwest of downtown Houston.

Operating with 100,000 watts ERP, it ran in tandem with 98.5 FM in Port Arthur, a Class C FM signal about 30 miles east of Houston, since 1996.

But the station went silent in 2020 after its tower collapsed. Owner Liberman Broadcasting took it silent and it never returned.

By 2022, the license had expired and was not renewed.

Following the tower collapse, 7430 Technologies petitioned the FCC to amend the table of allotments to include a Class C2 allocation in Wharton, which is about 40 miles north of where KJOJ’s tower once stood, as Radio World reported. The commission granted that request after no counter-proposals or opposition comments were filed.

Now, since the two allocations are obviously short-spaced — well less than the required spacing of about 155 miles — the commission’s Audio Division is proposing that the Class C allocation in Freeport be deleted. 

While the commission typically reinstates vacant channels in the FM table to preserve future licensing opportunities, the Audio Division said it proposed deleting this allocation due to the spacing violation.

Comments on the deletion are being sought through March 13, with reply comments due March 30. Any party interested in retaining the allocation must provide evidence that it is technically feasible.

103.3 Freeport’s history dates back to a construction permit granted in 1985, originally as KGLF. It gained the KJOJ calls in 1990. In 1996, KJOJ began simulcasting the then-smooth jazz format of Port Arthur’s 98.5 KHYS.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post FCC Seeks to Delete Class C Allocation for Houston Rimshot appeared first on Radio World.

A group that advocates for low-power FM stations is worried that any changes made by the FCC to current ownership rules for commercial broadcasters will have consequences on smaller community-based radio services.

In fact, it said if the commission relaxes ownership limits for primary broadcasters, it should update LPFM’s ownership limits in unison, to ensure consistency, fairness and preservation of community-based service.

The Low Power FM Advocacy Group (LPFM-AG) is among the thousands of filers who have commented during the FCC’s proceeding on broadcast ownership rules, which could result in major reforms and the elimination of AM and FM ownership caps.

“If ownership limits are relaxed, the resulting increase in local market power will have predictable downstream effects on smaller broadcasters unless complementary measures are considered,” according to the group’s filing.

The recent reply comments, signed by Dave Solomon, executive director of LPFM-AG, outline its concerns about further radio ownership consolidation and how increased local market power affects broadcasters that lack those advantages.

“Increased concentration alters the economic environment in which smaller broadcasters operate, particularly those without access to multi-station sales operations, regional branding, or capital reserves,” the group wrote.

In addition, Solomon said the FCC’s existing rules for the LPFM broadcast service create many challenges, despite the service being closely aligned with the commission’s localism objectives.

Restrictive ownership rules for LPFM

Right now, a party cannot hold an “attributable interest,” as defined by the FCC, in more than one LPFM station. Radio World has reported on repeated LPFM application rejections as a result of the ownership limit rule.

Solomon cautioned that LPFM operators are currently hampered by the most restrictive ownership, transfer and technical rules of any broadcast service.

“These constraints become more consequential as ownership consolidation increases elsewhere in the broadcast landscape,” he wrote.

(Read LPFM-AG’s reply comments, filed on Dec. 25.)

Therefore, the advocacy group is concerned that commercial broadcast ownership changes without parallel reform for LPFM would amplify existing asymmetries and increase pressure on community-based services.

If LPFM ownership rules were updated with reasonable “guardrails,” the group asserted that the service would be better assured that increased concentration does not operate “to the exclusive benefit of large clusters,” while leaving small and community broadcasters “increasingly exposed.”

The group pointed out that the commission has already determined that a rigid one station ownership limit for LPFM is not universally appropriate. Under existing FCC rules, according to the group, certain applicants are “expressly permitted to hold attributable interests in more than one LPFM station where doing so is necessary to serve their communities effectively.”

Specifically, the LPFM advocacy group noted that the commission already allows Tribal applicants and public safety or governmental entities operating within their jurisdiction to own up to two LPFM stations.

In addition, under current rules, LPFM stations may not be transferred for fair market value, according to the group.

“As a result, LPFM licenses are frequently surrendered rather than transferred,” LPFM-AG said.

AM broadcasters face similar challenges

Meanwhile, the LPFM advocate argued that small, locally-owned AM broadcasters face the same threat as LPFMs if further commercial ownership consolidation is allowed by the FCC.

They often rely on a single FM translator to remain viable. In addition, the group said, many AMs are minority owned and serve local or cultural communities.

LPFM-AG, which claimed over 500 low power FM radio stations have been killed off in the past 15 years, said noncommercial broadcasters also face comparable structural exposure.

“LPFM stations depend on local underwriting, fundraising and volunteer support. Neither service can realistically compete for local economic support against large clusters with dominant market presence,” the group wrote.

The LPFM advocacy group said commenters in the record supporting deregulation repeatedly argue “that rigid, legacy rules should give way to more flexible, service-based standards.”

Solomon argued that applying that same logic requires examining whether LPFM ownership transfer, and technical restrictions remain necessary in all circumstances.

“Absent such LPFM reforms, existing LPFM transfer and ownership restrictions will continue to force license surrender and permanently deprive communities of locally originated radio service,” Solomon wrote.

(Read our ongoing coverage of comments the FCC has been taking in its review of broadcast ownership rules.)

The post LPFM Advocate Warns FCC of Possible Side Effects of More Consolidation appeared first on Radio World.

We have more details about the FCC’s plan to invite applications for new FM translator construction permits for noncom educational stations in the reserved band, 88.1 to 91.9 MHz.

We reported yesterday that Chairman Carr had mentioned a planned vote in a blog post. The commission subsequently released the draft of the notice on which it will vote on Feb. 18.

You can read the full draft notice here in PDF format.

The notice will direct the Media Bureau to begin work to open the filing window, the first of its kind for stations in the reserved band. Specific dates would come later.

Under the plan, an applicant would have to be the licensee or permittee of an existing NCE FM or noncommercial AM radio broadcast station or LPFM that the proposed translator would rebroadcast. The FCC does not plan to accept major modifications to existing NCE reserved band translators.

The commission also is proposing a limit of 10 applications nationally for each applicant (but four for tribal LPFMs and two for other LPFMs). But it also is asking for public comment on its proposed eligibility restrictions and caps.

“The commission has employed application caps or eligibility restrictions in prior reserved band full-service NCE FM windows and non-reserved band FM translator windows to promote efficiency, curb speculative applications and expedite the processing of applications and expansion of new service while preserving spectrum and future licensing opportunities,” it wrote in a summary sheet.

“For example, in both 2007 and 2021, before the NCE FM station filing windows opened, the commission sought comment on an application cap and subsequently established a limit of 10 NCE FM new station applications filed by an applicant during each filing window.”

It said the application limit was an effective safeguard and helped restrict the number of MX applications, prevented mass filings and allowed the FCC to process and grant thousands of new NCE FM applications. It noted that it also has imposed such restrictions in prior translator filing windows.

And as noted above, the FCC said that it will not accept applications for major mods to existing NCE reserved band translators. “An applicant seeking a major modification to an existing NCE reserved band FM translator station authorization may apply for a new station and, subsequent to commencement of operations with its newly authorized facilities, surrender its old station license.”

Do you receive the daily Radio World SmartBrief newsletter?

The post FCC Releases Details of Proposed NCE Translator Window appeared first on Radio World.

Two PR and marketing agencies that are prominent in broadcast, audio and AV technology have merged.

The new entity is called Copper Leaf Media. It is the result of a merger of Copper Leaf Media, a London-based company founded in 2016 by Roland Hemming and Kiera Leeming, and Dimension PR, a U.S.-based firm started by Brian Galante in 2010.

“The merger creates one of the industry’s largest full-service marketing and public relations agencies serving the AV, broadcast, lighting, pro audio and security industries,” it said in the announcement.

Its offerings include content marketing, graphics creation, social media management, strategic branding, video, 2D/3D animation production and web design. 

“Dimension PR adds substantial public relations and writing experience to the team, along with ad campaign management skills, while strengthening Copper Leaf Media’s presence in North America and LATAM region,” the company said.

Galante becomes president for the Americas and will sit on the board along with Hemming, Leeming and Marieke de Jonge. Alicia Root, who joined Dimension PR last year, also joins.

[See Our Business and Law Page]

The post Copper Leaf Media Merges With Dimension PR appeared first on Radio World.

As Brendan Carr shovels out from under the snow and ice, he revealed that he and his fellow commissioners will take a vote next month for opening a window for new noncommercial band FM translator construction permits.

The FCC chairman announced the commission’s plans for the month of February in a Jan. 27 blog entry on the FCC’s website, titled “Good Governance,” which outlines the actions he said ensure the agency “is a good steward of scarce federal dollars.” It includes a vote to launch a public notice for what would be the first filing window for translators in the noncom FM band. 

There have been past filing windows for full-power noncom stations, or for stations that broadcast between 88.1 and 91.9 MHz, most recently in 2021.

And while a provision for filing windows for translators in the noncom frequencies exist in the FCC’s rulebook, as attorney Gregg Skall explained for Radio World, past translator filing windows, such as in 2003, have been only for commercial (above 92 MHz) frequencies. 

If the three commissioners vote to approve the item, the FCC would release a public notice seeking comment on the proposed rules for noncom translator filings. Carr said in his post that in doing so, the commission also seeks comment on eligibility requirements and application limits to prevent “speculative filings” and ensure fair access to licenses.

During the 2021 full-power noncom filing window, for example, the commission wanted to cap the number of applications to avoid a repeat of the 2003 translator window in which it was swamped with 13,000 applications, many from speculative filers.

The chairman said that the proposed filing window is part of the steps the FCC is taking to support noncom educational broadcasting and preserve the airwaves for local and community-focused services.

“These actions help strengthen localism and support the continued growth of noncommercial service on the FM band,” Carr wrote.

On Wednesday, the FCC released more details of the proposed NCE filing window. Read Radio World’s coverage.

The post FCC to Vote on First-Ever Noncom FM Translator Filing Window appeared first on Radio World.

The FCC imposed six financial penalties against alleged radio pirate operators last year.

It also issued 10 notices of apparent liability that may turn into fines, and it entered into three consent decree agreements with pirate operators, each with 20-year compliance plans. 

The commission sent to Congress its required annual report on its activity under the PIRATE Act of 2020. 

The biggest penalty was a fine issued last June against Fabrice Polynice for approximately $2.4 million for pirate radio broadcasting in North Miami, Fla., confirming an earlier notice of proposed liability. 

The commission called him one of the most egregious offenders and said he operated “Radio Touche Douce” since at least 2012. Polynice, also known as DJ Paz, had asked the commission to reduce his penalty, saying he couldn’t afford to pay.

Also on the list is a fine against Masner Beauplan for $920,000 issued in September for activity in the New York City area.

Other fines or settlements range from $6,000 to $325,000. The commission has not said that these or other pirate fines have actually been collected, other than in cases of consent decrees.

The current maximum fines are about $120,000 per day and $2.5 million total.

The Enforcement Bureau can also issue notices to property owners and property managers of apparent pirate radio broadcasts from their property. 

In 2025, it issued 28 such letters, including 17 related to the required pirate “sweeps” it conducts in cities where illegal broadcasting is most prevalent.

“Because pirate radio stations often cease operating for a period of time but then return, the bureau will continue to monitor the properties for which notices were provided and will initiate enforcement action where appropriate,” it told Congress.

The commission has hired six full-time employees under the PIRATE Act but did not hire any in the past year.

It also maintains a public database of its activities in pirate enforcement; that has been updated. It lists 185 individual actions since 2020, ranging from nonmonetary notice letters to large financial penalties. The majority of its enforcement activity has been in New York, Massachusetts and Florida.

[See Our Business and Law Page]

The post FCC Updates Congress on Pirate Enforcement appeared first on Radio World.

When it comes to local ownership caps, the National Religious Broadcasters believes the FCC should treat the AM and FM bands differently.

It thinks the commission should adopt “a measured, service-specific” approach, eliminating AM restrictions but keeping the caps for FM. It says the bands face “materially different” market conditions.

The commission is weighing the future of ownership limits as part of its quadrennial review. In each of the largest markets, a licensee currently can own up to eight commercial radio stations and no more than five on each band (FM/AM) in the market. The cap shrinks as the number of stations in a market decreases.

NRB represents 1,100 Christian broadcasters and media organizations in radio, television, digital and emerging platforms.

NRB said the elimination of local restrictions on AM would help stabilize, promote and revitalize the band.

“AM radio faces a distinct and well-documented set of technical, economic and competitive challenges. In this environment, continued application of local ownership caps no longer meaningfully advances the commission’s core policy objectives.”

It said AM ownership flexibility can serve as a stabilizing mechanism, allowing operators to combine resources, spread fixed costs and reinvest in facilities and programming that might otherwise be lost.

“Greater flexibility could also facilitate technical improvements, including transmitter modernization, signal upgrades and enhanced emergency-alert capabilities.”

But NRB urges the commission to retain its local limits for FM radio.

It says FM stations continue to play a central role in local markets, maintain strong audience reach and serve as primary platforms for locally originated news, public affairs, educational and community programming.

Relaxing FM limits would risk accelerating consolidation in precisely the segment of radio where localism and viewpoint diversity remain most vibrant and most vulnerable, NRB believes.

It said that for faith-based, educational and mission-driven broadcasters in particular, local FM ownership is not merely a structural consideration but a prerequisite for serving distinct communities with programming tailored to local needs.

“Further consolidation of FM ownership would likely reduce opportunities for independent ownership, narrow editorial diversity and weaken the connection between licensees and the communities they are licensed to serve.” The association says that would run counter to the objectives of the Communications Act and the commission’s commitment to a locally responsive broadcast system.

NRB expressed concern that further consolidation would “disproportionately harm independent, mission-driven broadcasters, who lack the scale, capital and national infrastructure of large broadcast groups,” and it said increased consolidation “would reduce educational and public-interest programming, which depends on local commitment and community service, not commercial scale or national efficiencies.”

[Related: “NAB Presses FCC to Accelerate Broadcast Ownership Changes”]

The post NRB Would Drop AM Caps But Keep FM Limits appeared first on Radio World.

A nonprofit in Iowa was denied by the FCC in a second attempt to change its application frequency to resolve short-spacing with a vacant allotment.

The organization tried to point to prior legal precedent in its defense. But the commission stood firm, pointing to its long-established rule that classifies changing operating channels as a “major amendment.”

The Catholic nonprofit Holy Mother Mary filed an application in the 2023 LPFM window to broadcast on 98.7 FM in Cascade, located in eastern Iowa between Cedar Rapids and Dubuque.

Holy Mother Mary’s application was originally dismissed by the FCC for failing to meet spacing requirements regarding a co-channel vacant allotment for a Class A FM station in Asbury.

After Holy Mother Mary successfully petitioned the FCC to reconsider the initial dismissal, the organization filed a waiver request to move its application to a different frequency. But as Radio World reported, the commission denied that request, noting it only allows for minor amendments.

In its second petition, filed last April, Holy Mother Mary argued that the commission lacks statutory authority to prohibit major amendments to pending new LPFM applications. It further argued that the refusal to accept a major amendment in this case was “a patent violation” of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The FCC remained unconvinced.

Major qualifications

The commission defines “minor amendments” as certain site relocations, ownership changes, time-sharing agreements and changes in general and/or legal information.

It excludes all channel changes from the list of minor amendments. The commission adopted this rule in 2001.

Holy Mother Mary successfully petitioned the commission in the summer of 2024 to reconsider the initial ruling, based on the fact the short-spacing was due to a vacant allotment. But it was only permitted to make a minor adjustment to its application. The end result would have been the same — a short-spacing to the Asbury allotment.

It followed up with an August 2024 waiver request, desiring to move its application to the second-adjacent frequency of 98.3 FM, with would have required a separate waiver due to a short-spacing with new adjacent 98.1 KHAK(FM).

(Read the FCC’s denial of the petition for reconsideration.)

As an alternative to that waiver, Holy Mother Mary asked to move to the non-adjacent frequency of 93.5 FM, where there’d be no such conflict.

In its waiver request, Holy Mother Mary also questioned the “statutory underpinning” of the FCC’s minimum power limit requirement for LPFM stations, established in 2000. It cited the Administrative Procedure Act and the Loper Bright Supreme Court decision to support its contention that a major amendment, such as a channel change, should be allowed.

But the FCC denied both the waiver and its proposed move to 93.5.

Unclear requirements

Holy Mother Mary argued in its second petition, filed last March, that the APA requires courts to set aside agency actions and findings found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”

“Congress never gave the FCC a specific law to prevent the type of curative amendment we wanted to make in February 2024 when we sought leave to amend from [98.7] to [93.5],” Holy Mother Mary wrote in its petition.

The group also claimed that the Communications Act of 1934 is “ambiguous” and “does not give the FCC express authority to dismiss applications such as that filed” by Holy Mother Mary.

The less forgiving the FCC’s acceptability standard, “the more precise its requirements must be,” the organization wrote in its petition, citing the Salzer v. FCC court case from 1985.

According to the Media Bureau, the organization also contended it lacked “clear notice” of major amendment restrictions — such as channel changes — for new LPFM applications.

For those reasons, Holy Mother Mary felt it should be permitted to change frequencies.

Petition denied

The Media Bureau pointed to the classifications established when it adopted rules governing LPFM amendments in 2001. Those rules have been published since, the Bureau explained, and the deadline for challenging the basis of those classifications “passed decades ago.”

The commission also took issue with Holy Mother Mary’s contention that it lacks the authority to make rules regarding frequency assignments, pointing to specific language in the 1934 Communications Act specifying “all the channels of radio transmission.”

The Act, the Media Bureau said, allows the commission to adopt “reasonable” classifications of applications and amendments.

“Defining a channel change as a major amendment to a pending new LPFM application is one such reasonable classification,” it wrote.

A minor change, the Bureau explained, is one that would not require a reevaluation of the application by its staff. Using a new, non-adjacent channel would require a repeat technical review and a determination of whether the amended application would be mutually exclusive with other groups.

The Loper Bright decision, the commission contended, did not change the circumstances for processing the organization’s application. The situation did not warrant “special circumstances” for a waiver, and the denial properly followed its own rules.

The Media Bureau dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Holy Mother Mary sought to broadcast Catholic religious programming, fed primarily by the EWTN network, according to its application.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post FCC Rejects Iowa LPFM Hopeful’s Bid for Channel Change appeared first on Radio World.

The Federal Communications Commission’s carousel of repurposing satellite spectrum keeps spinning and broadcasters are hanging on tight.

The FCC clearly has a hunger for spectrum to further expand terrestrial 5G and other wireless services in the United States. Chairman Brendan Carr has repeatedly made that abundantly clear. He wants to “restore U.S. leadership in wireless.”

But just how much spectrum should the FCC repurpose for its use? The National Association of Broadcasters is cautioning the FCC to consider it carefully.

The commission is required by statute to auction at least 100 MHz of upper C-band (3.98 GHz–4.08 GHz) spectrum no later than July 2027. However, the FCC is proposing to auction up to 180 MHz (from 3.98 GHz–4.16 GHz) through competitive bidding; and wireless providers want even more.

Regardless of the outcome, broadcasters will be impacted, NAB said. The upper C-band is essential to the broadcast industry for satellite program contribution and distribution, according to the NAB, and its use has only intensified since the lower C-band auction less than five years ago.

NAB said in comments filed on Jan. 20 that the commission should limit the auction to 100 MHz to ensure that broadcast customers are fully protected and bear no harm throughout the transition.

Any greater amount of auctioning, the association warned, would cause “material disruption to broadcasters.

Furthermore, NAB argued that to the extent that broadcasters are forced to transition because more than 100 MHz of the upper C-band is auctioned, they should not be forced to bear the costs of the transition.

The costs, as was the case in past transitions, should be borne by auction winners, NAB said.

The comments are NAB’s initial submission in the open proceeding on the Upper C-band; comments had been due to the commission by Jan. 5, and reply comments by Feb. 3. Several groups, however, including NAB, had asked the commission for more time.

A more complex coordination

A previous auction in 2020 for the lower C-band, which generated $81 billion in net licensing fees for the FCC, required massive coordination between broadcasters and satellite companies to move services to 4.0–4.2 GHz., but NAB said another move for broadcasters would be even more complicated and require more time.

Even with a “planned transition, incumbents undoubtedly will bear some material inconvenience. On the other hand, a hasty transition would materially degrade and interrupt broadcast services,” NAB said.

(Read NAB’s complete filing on the Upper C-band with the FCC.)

NAB said that SES, the major provider of C-band satellite services to broadcasters in the U.S., has stated that most incumbent users can be “repacked” quickly into a reduced C-band if reallocation is limited to about 100 MHz.

Still, the broadcaster advocacy group said “there inevitably will be some disruption to incumbent users as a result of aggressive repacking. But repacking all or most users within C-band will be far less disruptive than forcing those users into other satellite spectrum or alternative platforms.”

During the previous transition, NAB told the FCC many earth stations required only filtering, repointing and modest “inside” equipment upgrades, which could be completed within the lump sum reimbursement amount of $17,000 for a receive-only earth station with dual feeds.

Going into the first repack, the FCC said there were approximately 20,000 registered earth stations used by broadcasters to receive satellite transmissions.

However, NAB pointed to reported delays from many C-band users of over two years to get reimbursed for costs consistent with the cost catalog. The group is asking the commission to streamline reimbursement processes or provide significant “up front” monies so that incumbents are not out-of-pocket millions of dollars for several years.

This time around a total move of broadcast satellite services out of the C-band to the Ku-band, for example, would be considerably more expensive, NAB said.

In contrast, the group says a C-band earth station that must move to Ku-band would often require construction of an entirely new earth station — including a second antenna, cabling and supporting equipment — to allow for dual-illumination during the transition period. It estimated the relocation cost would be more than $400,000.

Wish list

The broadcast industry learned valuable lessons from the previous lower C-band transition, according to NAB, which led to a wish list of sorts from the group if another move happens. Those include:

• Preference for a single transition: The transition of incumbents out of the lower C-band was completed in two phases. A single transition is preferred by NAB.
• Transition plans must be public: The commission should make clear that such plans will be publicly available for review and comment.
• Interference protection must be enforceable: NAB said there must be an enforcement mechanism to ensure recommendations and procedures are implemented.
• Prioritizing uplink frequencies for the remaining C-band: NAB shared concerns raised by the North American Spectrum Alliance that the reduced C-band downlink spectrum has created significant challenges coordinating uplink frequency use with terrestrial microwave users.

Aeronautics industry has altimeter interference issues

Beyond the multi-billion-dollar costs associated with relocating incumbents out of C-band, NAB said auctioning more than 100 MHz would also substantially increase both the costs of radio altimeter replacement and the risk of interference to those systems.

The operating band of radio altimeters sits at 4.2–4.4 GHz. The aeronautics industry has previously warned the FCC it has concerns about interference between the adjacent spectrum bands.

“Limiting the auction to 100 MHz, which would confine terrestrial operations to below 4080 MHz, would minimize the potential for interference to existing radio altimeter systems and could allow some aircraft to avoid equipment replacement,” NAB said.

NPR

[See Our Business and Law Page]

The post NAB to FCC: Take 100 MHz of Upper C-Band, but No More appeared first on Radio World.

In a move that could have a major impact on daytime and late night talk shows, the Federal Communications Commissions’ Media Bureau has issued guidance telling broadcast stations airing certain late night and daytime talk shows that they are required to give equal time to rival candidates.

The guidance could also give affiliate stations a legal rationale for dropping controversial programming like “Jimmy Kimmel Live”, which regularly criticizes President Trump.

It isn’t certain, however, what legal impact the new guidance might have given that the FCC has not voted on any new regulations.

“Late night programming and daytime talk shows have been exempt from that [equal time for political candidates] requirement since 2006 when an exemption was given to Jay Leno because he was conducting bona fide news interviews,” the FCC noted in its latest guidance.

“Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption … Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent. Any program or station that wishes to obtain formal assurance that the equal opportunities requirement does not apply (in whole or in part) is encouraged to promptly file a petition for declaratory ruling that satisfies the statutory requirements for a bona fide news exemption.”

“In the meantime, the Media Bureau encourages all television broadcast stations to ensure that they are making all appropriate equal opportunity filings in accordance with the FCC’s rules and as required by agency precedent. It is important that both broadcasters and legally qualified candidates understand the FCC’s equal opportunities regulations and how they can result in broadcasters offering opposing legal qualified candidates comparable time and placement,” the FCC concluded.

The move drew immediate fire from the lone Democrat on the FCC, Commissioner Anna Gomez, who said it was an “an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.”

“Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our political broadcasting rules,” Gomez said in a statement. “The FCC has not adopted any new regulation, interpretation, or Commission-level policy altering the long-standing news exemption or equal time framework. For decades, the Commission has recognized that bona fide news interviews, late-night programs, and daytime news shows are entitled to editorial discretion based on newsworthiness, not political favoritism. That principle has not been repealed, revised, or voted on by the Commission. This announcement therefore does not change the law, but it does represent an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.

“The First Amendment does not yield to government intimidation,” Gomez added. “Broadcasters should not feel pressured to water down, sanitize, or avoid critical coverage out of fear of regulatory retaliation. Broadcast stations have a constitutional right to carry newsworthy content, even when that content is critical of those in power. That does not change today, it will not change tomorrow, and it will not change simply because of this Administration’s desire to silence its critics.”

Last year, FCC Commissioner attacked “Jimmy Kimmel Live” for violating public interest standards for broadcast stations and applauded Nexstar and Sinclair for temporarily blacking out his show on their broadcast stations.

This drew fire from free speech groups and some conservatives like Ted Cruz who argued that Carr’s interpretation of public interest rules could be used to censor conservatives.

[Do you receive the Radio World SmartBrief newsletter each weekday morning? We invite you to sign up here.]

The post FCC Says Late Night and Daytime Shows Must Offer Equal Time appeared first on Radio World.

Labor union SAG-AFTRA says further media consolidation will allow broadcast conglomerates to cut even more jobs, hurting local radio and television newsroom operations.

Of all the filings to flood the FCC during its ongoing broadcast ownership review – over 2,100 in all so far – perhaps none better reflect the opinion of the thousands of broadcast employees that might be negatively affected by further broadcast consolidation. 

Radio World has been covering both filings and reply comments — which were due Jan. 16 — including recent entries from the National Association of Broadcasters and musicFirst Coalition and the Future of Music Coalition. 

The Screen Actors Guild – American Federal of Television and Radio Artists is the largest labor union representing media artists, including, including more than 160,000 actors, announcers, DJs voiceover artists and program hosts.

The organization is urging the commission to keep its current local radio ownership and local television multiple ownership rules in place. SAG-AFTRA believes the rules remain necessary to serve the public interest and to “advance the agency’s three traditional policy goals of competition, localism and viewpoint diversity.”

Jobs at stake

In its comments filed in December as part of the FCC’s quadrennial review process, SAG-AFTRA wrote that the elimination or relaxation of the broadcast ownership rules also risks detrimental impacts on employment within the broadcast industry, particularly in smaller markets.

It’s something the organization believes has been evident during past periods of media consolidation.

“To achieve the economies of scale the companies claim are necessary, conglomerates often centralize work and content production operations that were once the responsibility of local stations,” the organization told the FCC.

Radio and TV broadcasters are already compressing wages and eliminating jobs, including those once held by SAG-AFTRA members, the organization said.

The union cited data from the Radio Television Digital News Association’s 2025 survey, showing that the median radio news operation has only one full-time news staffer, while the average operation dropped to 3.2 full time staffers, down 0.5 from 2024.

Part-time staffing also declined last year, and the trends are consistent across markets of all sizes, according to SAG-AFTRA.

TV news staffing levels are also dropping, according to the organization. In local TV, news employment has been trending down, with the latest RTDNA/Newhouse survey reporting total full-time local TV news employment of 27,066 in 2024, a 2.9% decline from the prior year, and down 3.3% from the 2021 peak, according to the labor union.

Five Forces test

The current media landscape is highly consolidated with a small number of conglomerates having expansive reach, SAG-AFTRA said in comments to the FCC, leaving little room for competition.

SAG-AFTRA said the FCC’s current ownership rules, therefore, serve a “pro-competitive purpose within the television and radio markets.”

Given the existing scope of consolidation, the union says relaxation of the rules would undoubtedly jeopardize “localism and viewpoint diversity” and could result in job loss and economic harm, particularly in smaller local markets.

SAG-AFTRA proposes the FCC use Michael Porter’s “Five Forces” framework to assess the current ownership rules. Porter is the famed Harvard Business School professor who developed the framework often used to analyze industry competition. The framework examines the five “competitive forces” that shape rivalry and profitability:

• Threat of New Entrants
• Bargaining Power of Buyers
• Bargaining Power of Suppliers
• Threat of Substitutes
• Competitive Rivalry

SAG-AFTRA said the five forces are to be evaluated by first weighing each force separately, then collectively to “judge the overall intensity of competitive pressure.”   

The union says Porter’s first force, barriers to entry, is particularly applicable to broadcasting, which depends on the exclusive use of a scarce public resource.

“To address this force, among others, Congress conditioned broadcast licenses on service to the public interest, providing licensees use of the airwaves, but not ownership,” the organization said.

With entry constrained, the union wrote, preserving competition in today’s environment depends on preserving legitimate rivalry among the existing licensees and preventing any one owner from gaining leverage over key “buyer” relationships — such as local advertisers and even viewers — and other market forces.

In addition, it said the current rules also help limit owner’s ability to gain outsized leverage over buyers and over key inputs/suppliers, such as network affiliation relationships and high-value programming.

Further, they reduce the risk that consolidation turns “competition” into nothing more than cost-cutting and centralized decision-making that diminishes investment in genuinely local coverage, the labor union said.

While the threat of substitutes, particularly from digital and online media is very real, the actor’s guild said in the broadcast context it does not automatically replicate the competitive constraints that matter most for the public interest broadcasters are meant to serve.

The guild pointed to a court case — Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri v. FCC — as an example of why “grounded, force-by-force competitive analysis should matter in connection with the rulemaking.”

In its decision at the time, the Eighth Circuit accepted that the commission may conclude that non-broadcast competition, standing alone, is insufficient to achieve the public-interest objectives historically associated with broadcasting, the union says.

The court deferred to the FCC’s market definitions where the agency provided a rational explanation, SAG-AFTRA told the commission.

Central to its argument, SAG-AFTRA believes that the current ownership rules remain an important tool for preserving competition.

Notably, they help prevent a small number of companies from accumulating outsized control over the highest-reach local outlets, particularly in markets where the number of stations is inherently limited.

“They help preserve real choices for local advertisers and help ensure communities get meaningful local news by reducing the risk that consolidation turns competition into cost-cutting, centralized decision-making, and less investment in truly local coverage,” the organization wrote.

(You can read SAG-AFTRA’s full comments here.)

SAG-AFTRA’s argument about applying the Five Forces test drew the attention of Connoisseur Media and several other broadcast companies in their own reply comments to the FCC. They believe that the proposed competition test “actually demonstrates that consolidation is necessary in the broadcast radio industry.” You can read their discussion about it in their filing (on page 43 of the PDF, labeled as page 38).

Comment on this or any article. Email radioworld@futurenet.com.

The post SAG-AFTRA Opposes Any Changes to Broadcast Ownership Rules appeared first on Radio World.